Descargar texto completo
DE
Buscador de jurisprudencia
Nueva búsquedaCASO
Nombre del caso
5A_154/2010, II. zivilrechtliche Abteilung, arrêt du TF du 29 avril 2010
Referencia INCADAT
HC/E/CH 1059
Tribunal
Suiza
última instancia
Estados involucrados
Estados Unidos de América
Suiza
Fallo
29 April 2010
Definitiva
Grave riesgo - art. 13(1)(b) | Cuestiones procesales
-
-
-
-
INCADAT comentario
Excepciones a la restitución
Factores económicos
Dificultades en la implementación & aplicación
Ejecución de órdenes de restitución
SUMARIO
Sumario disponible en
EN
|
FR
Facts
It enjoined each parent from removing the child from its jurisdiction without the other's approval, and also permitted the mother to take the child to Switzerland on holiday until no later than 26 January. The mother failed to return the child. A canton Court at first instance ordered the child's return on 20 October 2008; that decision was reversed by the Superior Court of the canton of Zurich on 26 January 2009.The father appealed to the Federal Tribunal.
On 16 April 2009, the Tribunal allowed the father's appeal and ordered the mother to return the child to the USA within 30 days. In order to avoid the child's separation from his mother (regarded as intolerable for the child), the Tribunal made the return order contingent upon the mother's obtaining assurances enabling her to enter and reside in the USA until a ruling on custody. A first execution attempt failed (see 5A_721/2009, II. zivilrechtliche Abteilung, arrêt du TF du 7 décembre 2009 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 1058]).
The father initiated a second execution attempt. On 11 February 2010, the Office for Youth accepted the father's request and allowed the mother 20 days to return the child to the USA voluntarily, and threatened enforcement if not. The same ruling detailed the terms of return.The mother appealed to the Federal Tribunal. She obtained a stay of execution until a ruling on that appeal.
Ruling
Grounds
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
The mother entered a whole range of pleas to object to execution of the return order. The Tribunal dismissed them one after the other.In particular, the mother asserted financial difficulties to justify the retention. The Tribunal stressed, as it had done in its December 2009 ruling, that economic difficulties are not an intolerable situation within the meaning of Article 13 of the 1980 Convention.
The mother had mentioned those difficulties only in passing in the first return proceedings on the merits, and was asserting them in more detailed fashion at the stage of execution proceedings. The Federal Tribunal considered that in presenting these pleas, the mother was entering a plea on the merits against return, which could no longer be raised at the execution stage.
Procedural Matters
Federal Tribunal and remedies:
The Tribunal observed that the Convention creates a mechanism of international assistance among the Contracting States that is closely bound up with the observance and enforcement of foreign civil law. The Federal Act on International Child Abduction and the Hague Conventions on the Protection of Children and Adults (LF-EEA) became immediately applicable upon its enactment on 1 July 2009, and considers the canton as the sole authority competent regarding return orders; in the case in point, the Office for Youth did indeed have jurisdiction for the canton of Zurich. The mother could appeal against that decision.
Mediation:
The mother had applied for an attempted mediation. The Tribunal observed that the LF-EEA contemplates mediation in connection with return proceedings on the merits, but, by reference to Article 7(2)(c) of the 1980 Convention, it considered that mediation was not ruled out at the stage of execution proceedings as a matter of principle. The issue whether the mother could validly apply for mediation for the first time before the Federal Tribunal did not require an answer in the case in point, since the father refused to contemplate a mediation in any event.
Execution:
The Tribunal held the mother liable, on penalty of criminal proceedings and enforcement at her expense if she did not comply with the judgment, to return the child to the United States of America voluntarily within 20 days on the terms defined by the Office for Youth.
Author of the summary: Aude Fiorini, United Kingdom
INCADAT comment
The case has given rise to a larger number of important rulings by the Federal Tribunal, which are available on the following site:
5A_105/2009, II. zivilrechtliche Abteilung, arrêt du TF du 16 avril 2009 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 1057];
5A_764/2009 & 5A_778/2009, II. zivilrechtliche Abteilung, arrêt du TF du 11 janvier 2010 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 1077];
5A_721/2009, II. zivilrechtliche Abteilung, arrêt du TF du 7 décembre 2009 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 1058];
5A_80/2010, II. zivilrechtliche Abteilung, arrêt du TF du 22 mars 2010 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 1079].
Economic Factors
Article 13(1)(b) and Economic Factors
There are many examples, from a broad range of Contracting States, where courts have declined to uphold the Article 13(1)(b) exception where it has been argued that the taking parent (and hence the children) would be placed in a difficult financial situation were a return order to be made.
Australia
Director General of the Department of Family and Community Services v. Davis (1990) FLC 92-182 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 293]
The fact that the mother could not accompany the child to England for financial reasons or otherwise was no reason for non-compliance with the clear obligation that rests upon the Australian courts under the terms of the Convention.
Canada
Y.D. v. J.B. [1996] R.D.F. 753 (Que. C.A.) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 369]
Financial weakness was not a valid reason for refusing to return a child. The Court stated: "The signatories to the Convention did not have in mind the protection of children of well-off parents only, leaving exposed and incapable of applying for the return of a wrongfully removed child the parent without wealth whose child was so abducted."
France
CA Lyon, 19 septembre 2011, No de RG 11/02919 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 1168]
The existence of more favourable living conditions in France could not be taken into consideration.
Germany
7 UF 39/99, Oberlandesgericht Bamberg [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/DE 821]
New Zealand
K.M.A. v. Secretary for Justice [2007] NZFLR 891 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NZ 1118]
Financial hardship was not proven on the facts; moreover, the Court of Appeal considered it most unlikely that the Australian authorities would not provide some form of special financial and legal assistance, if required.
United Kingdom - England and Wales
In early case law, the Court of Appeal repeatedly rejected arguments that economic factors could justify finding the existence of an intolerable situation for the purposes of Article 13(1)(b).
Re A. (Minors) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1992] Fam 106 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 48]
In this case, the court decided that dependency on State benefits cannot be said in itself to constitute an intolerable situation.
B. v. B. (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1993] Fam 32, [1993] 2 All ER 144, [1993] 1 FLR 238, [1993] Fam Law 198 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 10]
In this case, it was said that inadequate housing / financial circumstances did not prevent return.
Re M. (Abduction: Undertakings) [1995] 1 FLR 1021 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 20]
The Court suggested that the exception might be established were young children to be left homeless, and without recourse to State benefits. However, to be dependent on Israeli State benefits, or English State benefits, could not be said to constitute an intolerable situation.
United Kingdom - Scotland
Starr v. Starr, 1999 SLT 335 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 195]
IGR, Petitioner [2011] CSOH 208 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 1154]
Switzerland
5A_285/2007/frs, IIe Cour de droit civil, arrêt du TF du 16 août 2007 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 955]
Zimbabwe
Secretary For Justice v. Parker 1999 (2) ZLR 400 (H) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ZW 340]
There are some examples where courts have placed emphasis on the financial circumstances (or accommodation arrangements) that a child / abductor would face, in deciding whether or not to make a return order:
Australia
Harris v. Harris [2010] FamCAFC 221 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 1119]
The financially precarious position in which the mother would find herself were a return order to be made was a relevant consideration in the making of a non-return order.
France
CA Paris, 13 avril 2012, No de RG 12/0617 [INCADAT Reference : HC/E/FR 1189]
In this case, inadequate housing was a relevant factor in the consideration of a non-return order.
Netherlands
De directie Preventie, optredend voor zichzelf en namens Y (de vader /the father) against X (de moeder/ the mother) (7 February 2001, ELRO nr.AA9851 Zaaknr:813-H-00) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NL 314]
In this case, financial circumstances were a relevant factor in the consideration of a non-return order.
United Kingdom - Scotland
C. v. C. 2003 S.L.T. 793 [INCADAT Reference : HC/E/UKs 998]
An example where financial circumstances did lead to a non-return order being made.
A, Petitioner [2011] CSOH 215, 2012 S.L.T. 370 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 1153]
In this case, adequate accommodation and financial support were relevant factors in the consideration of a non-return order.
European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)
Šneersone and Kampanella v. Italy (Application No 14737/09) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1152]
The ECrtHR, in finding that there had been a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the return of a child from Latvia to Italy, noted that the Italian courts exercising their powers under the Brussels IIa Regulation, had overlooked the fact that it was not financially viable for the mother to return with the child: she spoke no Italian and was virtually unemployable.
(Author: Peter McEleavy, April 2013)
Enforcement of Return Orders
Where an abducting parent does not comply voluntarily the implementation of a return order will require coercive measures to be taken. The introduction of such measures may give rise to legal and practical difficulties for the applicant. Indeed, even where ultimately successful significant delays may result before the child's future can be adjudicated upon in the State of habitual residence. In some extreme cases the delays encountered may be of such length that it may no longer be appropriate for a return order to be made.
Work of the Hague Conference
Considerable attention has been paid to the issue of enforcement at the Special Commissions convened to review the operation of the Hague Convention.
In the Conclusions of the Fourth Review Special Commission in March 2001 it was noted:
"Methods and speed of enforcement
3.9 Delays in enforcement of return orders, or their non-enforcement, in certain Contracting States are matters of serious concern. The Special Commission calls upon Contracting States to enforce return orders promptly and effectively.
3.10 It should be made possible for courts, when making return orders, to include provisions to ensure that the order leads to the prompt and effective return of the child.
3.11 Efforts should be made by Central Authorities, or by other competent authorities, to track the outcome of return orders and to determine in each case whether enforcement is delayed or not achieved."
See: < www.hcch.net >, under "Child Abduction Section" then "Special Commission meetings on the practical operation of the Convention" and "Conclusions and Recommendations".
In preparation for the Fifth Review Special Commission in November 2006 the Permanent Bureau prepared a report entitled: "Enforcement of Orders Made Under the 1980 Convention - Towards Principles of Good Practice", Prel. Doc. No 7 of October 2006, (available on the Hague Conference website at < www.hcch.net >, under "Child Abduction Section" then "Special Commission meetings on the practical operation of the Convention" then "Preliminary Documents").
The 2006 Special Commission encouraged support for the principles of good practice set out in the report which will serve moreover as a future Guide to Good Practice on Enforcement Issues, see: < www.hcch.net >, under "Child Abduction Section" then "Special Commission meetings on the practical operation of the Convention" then "Conclusions and Recommendations" then "Special Commission of October-November 2006"
European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)
The ECrtHR has in recent years paid particular attention to the issue of the enforcement of return orders under the Hague Convention. On several occasions it has found Contracting States to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention have failed in their positive obligations to take all the measures that could reasonably be expected to enforce a return order. This failure has in turn led to a breach of the applicant parent's right to respect for their family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), see:
Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, No. 31679/96, (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 7, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 336];
Sylvester v. Austria, Nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, (2003) 37 E.H.R.R. 17, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 502];
H.N. v. Poland, No. 77710/01, (2005) 45 EHRR 1054, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 811];
Karadžic v. Croatia, No. 35030/04, (2005) 44 EHRR 896, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 819];
P.P. v. Poland, No. 8677/03, 8 January 2008, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 941].
The Court will have regard to the circumstances of the case and the action taken by the national authorities. A delay of 8 months between the delivery of a return order and enforcement was held not to have constituted a breach of the left behind parent's right to family life in:
Couderc v. Czech Republic, 31 January 2001, No. 54429/00, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 859].
The Court has dismissed challenges by parents who have argued that enforcement measures, including coercive steps, have interfered with their right to a family life, see:
Paradis v. Germany, 15 May 2003, No. 4783/03, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 860];
A.B. v. Poland, No. 33878/96, 20 November 2007, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 943];
Maumousseau and Washington v. France, No. 39388/05, 6 December 2007, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 942].
The positive obligation to act when faced with the enforcement of a custody order in a non-Hague Convention child abduction case was upheld in:
Bajrami v. Albania, 12 December 2006 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 898].
However, where an applicant parent has contributed to delay this will be a relevant consideration, see as regards the enforcement of a custody order following upon an abduction:
Ancel v. Turkey, No. 28514/04, 17 February 2009, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1015].
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has held that the immediate enforcement of a return order whilst a final legal challenge was still pending did not breach Articles 8, 17, 19 or 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (San José Pact), see:
Case 11.676, X et Z v. Argentina, 3 October 2000, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Report n°71/00, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 772].
Case Law on Enforcement
The following are examples of cases where a return order was made but enforcement was resisted:
Belgium
Cour de cassation 30/10/2008, C.G. c. B.S., N° de rôle: C.06.0619.F, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/BE 750];
Canada
H.D. et N.C. c. H.F.C., Cour d'appel (Montréal), 15 mai 2000, N° 500-09-009601-006 (500-04-021679-007), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 915];
Switzerland
427/01/1998, 49/III/97/bufr/mour, Cour d'appel du canton de Berne (Suisse); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 433];
5P.160/2001/min, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 423];
5P.454/2000/ZBE/bnm, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 786];
5P.115/2006/bnm, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 840].
Enforcement may equally be rendered impossible because of the reaction of the children concerned, see:
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re B. (Children) (Abduction: New Evidence) [2001] 2 FCR 531; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 420];
United Kingdom - Scotland
Cameron v. Cameron (No. 3) 1997 SCLR 192; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 112];
Spain
Auto Juzgado de Familia Nº 6 de Zaragoza (España), Expediente Nº 1233/95-B; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ES 899].
Enforcement of Return Orders Pending Appeal
For examples of cases where return orders have been enforced notwithstanding an appeal being pending see:
Argentina
Case 11.676, X et Z v. Argentina, 3 October 2000, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Report n° 11/00 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 772].
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has held that the immediate enforcement of a return order whilst a final legal challenge was still pending did not breach Articles 8, 17, 19 or 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (San José Pact).
Spain
Sentencia nº 120/2002 (Sala Primera); Número de Registro 129/1999. Recurso de amparo [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ES 907];
United States of America
Fawcett v. McRoberts, 326 F.3d 491 (4th Cir. Va., 2003) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 494].
In Miller v. Miller, 240 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2001) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 461] while it is not clear whether the petition was lodged prior to the return being executed, the appeal was nevertheless allowed to proceed.
However, in Bekier v. Bekier, 248 F.3d 1051 (11th Cir. 2001) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 909] an appeal was not allowed to proceed once the child was returned to the State of habitual residence.
In the European Union where following the entry into force of the Brussels IIa Regulation there is now an obligation that abductions cases be dealt with in a six week time frame, the European Commission has suggested that to guarantee compliance return orders might be enforced pending appeal, see Practice Guide for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003.